Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 6 Apr 2023 10:41:52 -0600 | From | Keith Busch <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/5] add initial io_uring_cmd support for sockets |
| |
On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 07:43:26AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote: > This patchset creates the initial plumbing for a io_uring command for > sockets. > > For now, create two uring commands for sockets, SOCKET_URING_OP_SIOCOUTQ > and SOCKET_URING_OP_SIOCINQ. They are similar to ioctl operations > SIOCOUTQ and SIOCINQ. In fact, the code on the protocol side itself is > heavily based on the ioctl operations.
Do you have asynchronous operations in mind for a future patch? The io_uring command infrastructure makes more sense for operations that return EIOCBQUEUED, otherwise it doesn't have much benefit over ioctl.
> In order to test this code, I created a liburing test, which is > currently located at [1], and I will create a pull request once we are > good with this patch. > > I've also run test/io_uring_passthrough to make sure the first patch > didn't regressed the NVME passthrough path. > > This patchset is a RFC for two different reasons: > * It changes slighlty on how IO uring command operates. I.e, we are > now passing the whole SQE to the io_uring_cmd callback (instead of > an opaque buffer). This seems to be more palatable instead of > creating some custom structure just to fit small parameters, as in > SOCKET_URING_OP_SIOC{IN,OUT}Q. Is this OK?
I think I'm missing something from this series. Where is the io_uring_cmd change to point to the sqe?
| |